History of Dharmashastra (Ancient and Mediaeval Religious and Civil Law in India) v7.c93.312

v7.c93.312

The first meaning of ‘na’ is ‘abhāva’ (non-existence). But that meaning would not suit all cases. When one says ‘bring abrāhmaṇa’ the meaning conveyed is not ‘non-existence’ since, if that were the meaning, one could not bring non-existing brāhmaṇa and so might not bring any one at all, or might bring a clod of earth which would not fulfil any purpose of the person addressing these words and therefore, on hearing this, a person not a brāhmaṇa but resembling a brāhmaṇa (such as a kṣatriya) is brought So in this case 'abrāhmaṇa' means a person other than a brāhmaṇa; 'na' also conveys the opposite (*virodha*) of that to which it is prefixed It has been seen above that the verb is the main part in a sentence and in the verbal form it is the termination that is the principal part. So, in 'one must not eat kalañja' the negative particle 'na' must be held to be connected with the optative termination in 'bhakṣayet'. In a vidhi²⁰²⁷ (or on hearing a vidhi) one perceives that the sentence urges the listener to be active. When 'na' is prefixed to an optative from it conveys the opposite of urging viz. '*nivartana*' (desisting from something) The phala that one understands from a vidhi is as in 'yajeta svargakāmaḥ' svarga, while in a prohibition the phala is cessation of harm (anartha-nivṛtti). The adhikārī in a vidhi is one who desires svarga; in a niṣedha the adhikārī is one who is afraid of harm and desires to avoid what is undesirable. Therefore, these considerations establish that exhortation and prohibition are entirely different in their import.